Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 5th Jan 2019, 21:32
  #5341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quoted for posterity

"and will be achievable"
weemonkey is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 22:02
  #5342 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Asturias56

Can you predict the future? No? As for manpower, if the politicians had not cut it back so wildly in 2010, or if they (Cameron) had given the RN the extra 1500 personnel they expected in 2015 then we would be much better off.

weemonkey

Quote it all you want. It will be achievable.

Carrier (and other ship borne) aviation is in the Royal Navy's DNA.

WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 22:35
  #5343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,289
Received 512 Likes on 214 Posts
For the first 4-5 years it'll be mainly training exercises - then back in as "harbour training vessel" and then refurb while the PoW does the same working up routine
Is my calculation correct....are you saying it will be Ten Years to a Two Ship Carrier Fleet....but then half of it goes back to be a harbor training vessel for five years?
SASless is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 06:55
  #5344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,427
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
"Asturias56 -Can you predict the future? No? As for manpower, if the politicians had not cut it back so wildly in 2010, or if they (Cameron) had given the RN the extra 1500 personnel they expected in 2015 then we would be much better off"

Agreed - but that's where we are - and where a lot of people thought we'd be. What do we do now with the current constraints on manpower? What are the priorities for the British navy??? And don't say " we'll get more men" because I don't think you will.............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 06:59
  #5345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,427
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Is my calculation correct....are you saying it will be Ten Years to a Two Ship Carrier Fleet....but then half of it goes back to be a harbor training vessel for five years?
yes - believe it or not that's been the plan for years

Get the QE up and running and develop tactics and experience, then when the PoW turns up put the QE into "extended readiness" (and we all know what THAT means) - .

Long term the published plan is to rotate them in and out of readiness but always have one always in full service. and the other "on standby"

I guess one step beyond the USN -one in service, one in rehab - one working up system
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 13:06
  #5346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Get the QE up and running and develop tactics and experience"

Its all one big train set isn't it.

weemonkey is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 13:46
  #5347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,289
Received 512 Likes on 214 Posts
Let's take the long view of all of this....it is one huge employment scheme, pumps money into the industrial base, offers much, achieves little, and in the end is very much to do about nothing.

Eisenhower, who ya'll worked for during the Big One, warned the American People about our own Military/Industrial Complex all those many years ago.

Did ya'll quit listening to him upon Victory in Europe being announced?


Seriously speaking....is this whole thing more along the lines of being one very expensive "Keeping Up Appearances" episode?
SASless is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 15:59
  #5348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Long term the published plan is to rotate them in and out of readiness but always have one always in full service. and the other "on standby"

I guess one step beyond the USN -one in service, one in rehab - one working up system
The above begs a question (or two). How is "in full service" defined?

If the carrier is fully serviceable and its full crew embarked, fully trained and ready for deployment, but the airwing is not embarked is it "in full service"?

Similarly, if the carrier is fully serviceable and its full crew embarked, fully trained and ready for deployment, and its airwing embarked but its pilots undergoing work ups, is it "in full service"?
KenV is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2019, 19:27
  #5349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Let's take the long view of all of this....it is one huge employment scheme, pumps money into the industrial base, offers much, achieves little, and in the end is very much to do about nothing.

Eisenhower, who ya'll worked for during the Big One, warned the American People about our own Military/Industrial Complex all those many years ago.

Did ya'll quit listening to him upon Victory in Europe being announced?


Seriously speaking....is this whole thing more along the lines of being one very expensive "Keeping Up Appearances" episode?
all worked for Eisenhower. Oh dear ...
SARF is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 12:44
  #5350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,427
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
"The above begs a question (or two). How is "in full service" defined?"

Ken

I suspect it will be a matter of PR and political smoke and mirrors. "Full Service" looks like fully crewed for sea plus whatever additional bodies are required for the specific task on hand.

I think using the term "Air Wing" in the USN sense is a major (but understandable) mistake - these are not Nimitz's or Fords - but more mobile platforms with a variable role

Even when fully crewed the QE may not always have F-35's embarked - I'd guess the Crowsnest and anti subs helicopters will be on board when she leaves harbour but the other stuff will be on an "as needed" basis. In fact as the two vessels are supposed to replace the "Ocean" and other amphib landing ships sometimes there may be very few aircraft on board at all. The UK can't afford a dedicated full-on aircraft carrier - not even one - the RN are having to borrow engineers from the US Coastguard to run some ships

The real question is the definition of "readiness" of the harbor bound vessel when she's not in refit - given the manning issues across the fleet I suspect it will be a fairly minimum number of technical guys keeping everything on-line and the rest being reservists "on-call" or training on board. I haven't seen any indication of how fast the RN reckon they could return the second vessel to operational service in an emergency.

So the QE's are better than the Illustrious class and with two the RN is ahead of the French Navy - they also give some amphib capacity to replace (but not fully) the other vessels they're selling/have sold off

Last edited by Asturias56; 17th Jan 2019 at 13:01.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 20:42
  #5351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,289
Received 512 Likes on 214 Posts
As I suspected.....the evil French are yet the arch enemy....they must be trembling in their sea boots knowing these two huge multi-capable ships each carrying a half squadron of F-35's are just a few minutes away in Port at readiness to drop lines with several years notice.
SASless is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 15:40
  #5352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,427
Received 362 Likes on 211 Posts
Well actually I read that one of the reasons the Brits didn't go for a CVN (tho they build N- Engines for their SSBN & SSN fleet) was the problems of only being able to afford one N-powered vessel such as the Charles De Gaulle which has significant out-of-service periods for refit etc

Half a squadron is better than none I guess - in the country of the blind...............

But by building them the way they have Perfidious Albion will have aircraft that can use the French carrier but the French Navy won't be able to use a QE.......
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 07:54
  #5353 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Asturias56

1. HMS Queen Elizabeth could deploy if needed in the next year. Even without a full complement of jets, she still performs useful task group roles such as task group ASW with nine or so Merlins, and flagship.

2. Both carriers will be manned - harbour training ship? Where did you get that?

3. The carriers will take over Ocean's role of acting as a platform for helicopters in an amphibious operation, but will not (and cannot) take on the role of the LPDs (being retained) and LSD(A)s.

4. The decision to go non nuclear was taken in the nineties, due to integration issues, the expense of designing a special to type reactor, through life costs, and manning.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 14:31
  #5354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Ken, I think using the term "Air Wing" in the USN sense is a major (but understandable) mistake - these are not Nimitz's or Fords - but more mobile platforms with a variable role.
Which begs a third question. If the various aviation assets (aircraft, aircraft operators, aircraft maintainers, aircraft deck crew, etc etc) aboard the UK carriers are not called an air wing, what are they called?

KenV is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 17:29
  #5355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the plan is to be able to fire up both of these bad girls at the shortest possible notice with the maximum amount of Aircraft, coptors and marines on board ..
nuclear is not viable for a two ship carrier country
So the cheapest way of keeping readiness available is the way forward..

Come the next Falklands type scenario then everything is thrown at the problem..
In that respect these two assets are vastly more capable than anything we have ever had ..

The he ability to work with the USMC is another massive plus
SARF is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 17:46
  #5356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SARF & WEBF, I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 12:06
  #5357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@KenV tactical air group (TAG) basically you drag asssts as required from other formations based on required tasking. So a F35 squadron, some Metlins, green and blue, maybe chinooks and wildcats.

there is an issue that some RAF oriented views see deploying F35s as an option, or just a half squadron. Makes no sense to me! I can see one the carriers, when the TAG is amphibious oriented, only having a 1/2 squadron, but think that will never be a normal or strike config. When QE deploys in 2021 I expect it to have a full UK squadron and a USMC squadron. The normal becoming 2 squadrons of F35, sithbsurge ability beyond that!

now that does depend I think on us standing up 4 frontline squadrons of F35b. If some people get their way and we split the buy I can’t see that happening. That to my mind seriously undermines CEPP, the whole point of the carriers!
PeterGee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 13:35
  #5358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PeterGee
Now that does depend I think on us standing up 4 frontline squadrons of F35b. If some people get their way and we split the buy I can’t see that happening. That to my mind seriously undermines CEPP, the whole point of the carriers!
But look at it another way. If the detractors are successful in splitting the buy, then they can claim that the carriers never met the capability that was promised. And kill them.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 19:07
  #5359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
But look at it another way. If the detractors are successful in splitting the buy, then they can claim that the carriers never met the capability that was promised. And kill them.
indeed and whilst some do get it, there are swathes that do not value AirPower delivered from the sea.

PeterGee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 20:39
  #5360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by PeterGee
indeed and whilst some do get it, there are swathes that do not value AirPower delivered from the sea.
You have that opinion. Are the "swathes" wrong? Well, if you are talking American Carrier groups with strength in depth, then yes, that is a considerable capability. However, against a similarly capable adversary, they are always vulnerable to total elimination without having any effect. Moreover, the UK carriers do not offer a similar capability to a US Carrier group and represent a gross distortion of VFM against capability in the UK armoury.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.